Yes, by looking at the facts (and many more than those above), we can easily conclude that Arabs hate Jews due to religious beliefs.

But that is not true. The logic speaks for itself, thank God."

Other person: youtube.com/watch?v=-inua1igwfs#t=0m22s"Survey says!

Nearly all in Jordan (97 percent), the Palestinian territories (97%) and Egypt (95%) held an unfavorable view...More than seven-in-ten in Pakistan (78%) and Indonesia (74%) expressed unfavorable opinions...60% of Nigerian Muslims had an unfavorable view of Jews"

I have to repeat the same things over and over because someone misunderstands, and I sometimes also get insulted because I make Point A but someone takes it as Point B, something different to what I said.

At 9/24/2010 3:57:56 AM, Mirza wrote:I have to repeat the same things over and over because someone misunderstands, and I sometimes also get insulted because I make Point A but someone takes it as Point B, something different to what I said.

They misconstrue your points because they don't want to face your claims directly; rather, they figure that if they contort your views it would be easier. They wouldn't want a Muslim to win an argument.

At 9/24/2010 3:57:56 AM, Mirza wrote:I have to repeat the same things over and over because someone misunderstands, and I sometimes also get insulted because I make Point A but someone takes it as Point B, something different to what I said.

They misconstrue your points because they don't want to face your claims directly; rather, they figure that if they contort your views it would be easier. They wouldn't want a Muslim to win an argument.

You have got to be kidding.

That's like saying every time Mirza "doesn't get" my points, it's because he wouldn't want a WOMAN to win an argument. I know how much a Muslim would hate that.

At 9/24/2010 3:57:56 AM, Mirza wrote:I have to repeat the same things over and over because someone misunderstands, and I sometimes also get insulted because I make Point A but someone takes it as Point B, something different to what I said.

They misconstrue your points because they don't want to face your claims directly; rather, they figure that if they contort your views it would be easier. They wouldn't want a Muslim to win an argument.

No one wants someone else to win an argument here, that's what we do here, it isn't just a Muslim thing when it comes to that. There may be some anti muslim sentiment here, but get in line because there's anti Christian sentiment, anti atheist sentiment, you've been a bit anti Catholic, anti libertarian, anti conservative, anti-liberal, anti-anarchist, anti...pretty much everything. If there wasn't there'd be no website here. If we're looking for complete serenity in our discussions, then it wouldn't be DDO, but some other website. All things considered i think the site does a pretty good job at letting people argue their case and position, but if you are unable to bear up to attack, then either don't initiate or don't participate. It's a decent place though even if you have unpopular positions and you can argue your case well - people will respect you. Mirza as a person is pretty respected and valued, but some of his positions are not and again, that's why we're here ;-).

I agree with innomen. Nobody cares about Mirza being a Muslim in particular. Most of the time he's arguing with atheists who, as innomen rightly pointed out, tend to argue with other theists (Christians) too. There is no bias or favoritism. The real world might have Islamophobia but I think most people on DDO really don't care about that nonsense.

Even if Christians argue with Mirza, those Christians still disagree and have the same opportunity to "misunderstand" atheists. People straw man and misconstrue arguments all the time and it happens to everyone. Singling yourself out seems a little unnecessary, and blaming it on your religion (which I don't think Mirza did) is seemingly desperate and far from the truth. In short, if you've been misunderstood, Mirza then sure - take your time to clarify and point it out. But don't suggest it's a standard applicable only or mostly to you, because if we all made a page pointing out people's retarded responses to us, the forums would overload.

At 9/24/2010 8:19:50 AM, theLwerd wrote:I agree with innomen. Nobody cares about Mirza being a Muslim in particular. Most of the time he's arguing with atheists who, as innomen rightly pointed out, tend to argue with other theists (Christians) too. There is no bias or favoritism. The real world might have Islamophobia but I think most people on DDO really don't care about that nonsense.

Even if Christians argue with Mirza, those Christians still disagree and have the same opportunity to "misunderstand" atheists. People straw man and misconstrue arguments all the time and it happens to everyone. Singling yourself out seems a little unnecessary, and blaming it on your religion (which I don't think Mirza did) is seemingly desperate and far from the truth. In short, if you've been misunderstood, Mirza then sure - take your time to clarify and point it out. But don't suggest it's a standard applicable only or mostly to you, because if we all made a page pointing out people's retarded responses to us, the forums would overload.

And if we took measures to keep it from happening the forums would be dead.

At 9/24/2010 12:29:16 AM, Mirza wrote:... Misunderstand me all the time? If I write very long sentences that are made of complex words, then I am following, but when I write very clear and simple sentences, people still misunderstand.

Examples:

Me: "You are misunderstanding again, and I will therefore reply later."

Other person: "Cool. I misunderstand and you don't specify on what.Sweet."

saying you'll reply later would personally annoy me; since one of the last times you said that you did not.kinda like the GOP canadite for congress (in my district) office. I call asking questions about his stance on certain issues not mentioned on his website on in any paper as of yet and they say they will all me later and still have not. I call again same response.

Yes, by looking at the facts (and many more than those above), we can easily conclude that Arabs hate Jews due to religious beliefs.

But that is not true. The logic speaks for itself, thank God."

Other person: youtube.com/watch?v=-inua1igwfs#t=0m22s"Survey says!

Nearly all in Jordan (97 percent), the Palestinian territories (97%) and Egypt (95%) held an unfavorable view...More than seven-in-ten in Pakistan (78%) and Indonesia (74%) expressed unfavorable opinions...60% of Nigerian Muslims had an unfavorable view of Jews"

This is only today. How could my posts possibly be unclear?

In the second one you just put 'the logic speaks for itself' after you just listed data and admitted it said the opposite. obviously since people have the wrong idea the 'logic' does not 'speak for itself'. the whole point in wasting time posting on this site is to 'speak for the logic' to those it is not naturally occurring to.you could be more clear by articulating the point that disconnects the countries dislike for each other from how their culture is affected by their religions.

if you don't have time to post now, don't post at all. and don't rely on the 'logic speaking for itself'

this is just from reviewing your examples. I dont actually know from what post I have read of yours in the past if they are the problem.

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

At 9/24/2010 3:57:56 AM, Mirza wrote:I have to repeat the same things over and over because someone misunderstands, and I sometimes also get insulted because I make Point A but someone takes it as Point B, something different to what I said.

They misconstrue your points because they don't want to face your claims directly; rather, they figure that if they contort your views it would be easier. They wouldn't want a Muslim to win an argument.

I would say that is true with some people, but not much on this site.

I agree, it is mostly not due to my religion. I was not even thinking about that (although it seemed to be that due to the religion being mentioned above, but that was the most recent example).

The fact is that there are many times where I write something very clear and still get misunderstood. I can point out many threads where that has happened. I know that I am not the only one that this is happening to, but I notice it a lot due to my own posts and simply wonder why people keep misunderstanding. I will look more into it.

Why would I not be honest and say that I will reply later to let my opponent know in advance?

since one of the last times you said that you did not.

Let us be more specific.

On April 20 (this year) I created a thread called "Jesus' Divinity" in order to discuss his status in the Bible. You were there and what I said was that I will reply, but I will wait. I did not give any specific date. I made it clear that it would take some time but my reply would come. Have I abandoned it? No, and I say the same thing again, for your interest. I had to postpone it at that period.

kinda like the GOP canadite for congress (in my district) office. I call asking questions about his stance on certain issues not mentioned on his website on in any paper as of yet and they say they will all me later and still have not. I call again same response

OK.

In the second one you just put 'the logic speaks for itself' after you just listed data and admitted it said the opposite.

No. When I said that it is rooted in religious beliefs, I made it clear that it is not true. It is not due to religion that the name of Macedonia is being disputed. That is why I said that the logic speaks for itself. It is a simple sentence.

obviously since people have the wrong idea the 'logic' does not 'speak for itself'. the whole point in wasting time posting on this site is to 'speak for the logic' to those it is not naturally occurring to.

There is little to be misunderstood. If you look at the entire context, I made it clear that Arabs disliking Jews is not rooted in religion. It was very clear. Read for yourself if you want.

you could be more clear by articulating the point that disconnects the countries dislike for each other from how their culture is affected by their religions.

No, my point was clear: Arabs dislike Israel, Greeks dislike Turkey, etc., which makes it clear that just because Arabs may dislike Israel does not mean that it is rooted in religion, since many peoples dislike each other due to many other things. Non-Arab Muslims may love Israel but dislike Russia. It is due to politics.

if you don't have time to post now, don't post at all.

I definitely do not want to spend much time replying to something like this. It is plain illogic and nonsense. Why should I not post and then go off? Your statement is really void.

and don't rely on the 'logic speaking for itself'

Either read the context or do not tell me not to "rely on the logic speaking for itself." I will say it when it is true and clear.

this is just from reviewing your examples. I dont actually know from what post I have read of yours in the past if they are the problem.

At 9/24/2010 9:11:58 AM, Koopin wrote:Poor Mirzy, if someone does not understand you, or if you don't have a good reply, you can just post my picture and leave. http://www.debate.org...

You soak the onions in milk first?

Double dip the onion in milk and eggs, then in flour, salt, thyme, paprika, and rosemary. Then fry them until golden brown.

Nice, any special onions? Vidalia? Also, if you want them extra crunch grind up some rice to a powder and add it to he flour.

Hmm, good idea about the rice. I simply like the large sweet onions. Not these dumb small ones you get in a bag.

Ewww onion rings, I'd almost rather eat KFC. :p

Anyway Mirza, I think its because people don't like looking at the other side of things. I'll still be arguing my stance even if I'm agreeing with the other people more often, just for the sake of arguing and standing my ground. I know you tend to be one of the misunderstood people on this site tho, and I'm not entirely sure where that comes from, it may just be that the person you are arguing with doesn't want to admit defeat, but doesn't have a good argument.

Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave

Why would I not be honest and say that I will reply later to let my opponent know in advance?

since one of the last times you said that you did not.

Let us be more specific.

On April 20 (this year) I created a thread called "Jesus' Divinity" in order to discuss his status in the Bible. You were there and what I said was that I will reply, but I will wait. I did not give any specific date. I made it clear that it would take some time but my reply would come. Have I abandoned it? No, and I say the same thing again, for your interest. I had to postpone it at that period.

Cool, you remember the exact date and what was talking about. which is more than I remembered. It was back in April. that was months ago. I lost interest and stopped waiting. I think I brought it up again in another thread and then you responded with something about Greek translation of divine and I had to drop it there cause when it comes to foreign languages I speak in ignorance.Had I not brought it up again in that thread though I am quite sure I would never learn what your contention is with the first chapter of John. You let the Jesus Divinity thread get so old with no new post that its no longer on the first page of the forum. Its pretty clear if that happens to a thread that one should not expect a response in it, ever.

In the second one you just put 'the logic speaks for itself' after you just listed data and admitted it said the opposite.

No. When I said that it is rooted in religious beliefs, I made it clear that it is not true. It is not due to religion that the name of Macedonia is being disputed. That is why I said that the logic speaks for itself. It is a simple sentence.

obviously since people have the wrong idea the 'logic' does not 'speak for itself'. the whole point in wasting time posting on this site is to 'speak for the logic' to those it is not naturally occurring to.

There is little to be misunderstood. If you look at the entire context, I made it clear that Arabs disliking Jews is not rooted in religion. It was very clear. Read for yourself if you want.

I dont actually know what thread your example came from to see the context of it; but in this one you did nothing to make anything clear. It is clear you don't think Arabs dislike Jews because of religion but it is not clear as to why. You gave the son-sequencer data that most make to believe that Arabs dislike Jews due to religion, and then did explain why it is non-sequencer. Being clear would be listing off the other sources that cause the dislike, the real factors at blame.

'the logic speaks for itself' is not a argument. its a 'figure out yourself' statement. when the person you are arguing with has figured out the same thing as you already by definition they are not going to 'figure it out' themselves without any aid to doing that from you. you would have to lay out the 'simple' logical path to why its not rooted in religion for them, then you can hope they get it. if they didnt get it before then there not going to get it now no matter how simple you proclaim the logic is without spelling it out for them.

you could be more clear by articulating the point that disconnects the countries dislike for each other from how their culture is affected by their religions.

No, my point was clear: Arabs dislike Israel, Greeks dislike Turkey, etc., which makes it clear that just because Arabs may dislike Israel does not mean that it is rooted in religion, since many peoples dislike each other due to many other things. Non-Arab Muslims may love Israel but dislike Russia. It is due to politics.

now you see, that was not clear to me. I read that list of observances and assumed you were using Greece and Turkey to further point to religion as the blame. Stupid American like me reads 'Turkey' and thinks middle eastern religion like Islam is likely is main religion and Greece is something like catholic right?Dont rely on my cultural knowledge of every country you list off. if you need to make the point you just did spell out 'Greece is catholic, so is Turkey yet they still dont like each other' instead of just leaving it at 'Greece dose not like Turkey'

if you don't have time to post now, don't post at all.

I definitely do not want to spend much time replying to something like this. It is plain illogic and nonsense. Why should I not post and then go off? Your statement is really void.

When you dont have time to finish an argument, just leave the vauger stuff and not have time to correct my confusions that I will bring up in the form of objections, I will just stay confused. Its along the lines of 'dont start what you cant finish' type attitude. Its not exactly deep philosophy or anything.

and don't rely on the 'logic speaking for itself'

Either read the context or do not tell me not to "rely on the logic speaking for itself." I will say it when it is true and clear.

If it is true or clear how can you say people are misunderstanding it? true and clear statement do not get misunderstandings. if they do then they are not 'clear' by definition.

this is just from reviewing your examples. I don't actually know from what post I have read of yours in the past if they are the problem.

Very bad review, unfortunately.

don't give up on this conversation yet. by your own admission you seem to confuse people all the time. listen to what factors played in your confusing me in this case and you should see why you likely confuse others in other cases.

One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

At 9/24/2010 10:46:51 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:In example II the evidence went against you. This is your problem, you disregard evidence and say your opinion is right, and the evidence exists somewhere.

How did the evidence go against me?

You claimed the divides in the Middle East were on ethnic lines, the poll stated otherwise.

I know what your response will be, but make it clear for yourself and I will explain why you are wrong.

Oh yes, more of this "I know best, no evidence can trump me" attitude. Seriously. Most of your arguments are weak, somewhat farcical, don't use evidence, and any time I bring this up you state you do this in debates. The problem is, you don't do debates. How overdue is that Tito one with Volkov?

At 9/24/2010 9:57:49 AM, Marauder wrote:Cool, you remember the exact date and what was talking about. which is more than I remembered. It was back in April. that was months ago. I lost interest and stopped waiting. I think I brought it up again in another thread and then you responded with something about Greek translation of divine and I had to drop it there cause when it comes to foreign languages I speak in ignorance.Had I not brought it up again in that thread though I am quite sure I would never learn what your contention is with the first chapter of John. You let the Jesus Divinity thread get so old with no new post that its no longer on the first page of the forum. Its pretty clear if that happens to a thread that one should not expect a response in it, ever.

I respond most of the time either in the same thread of the beginning of a discussion or in another thread. I discussed the status of Jesus many times and will continue soon, which you will hopefully not miss, and InquireTruth, who also participated in the thread I mentioned, will be made aware of the new discussion.

No. When I said that it is rooted in religious beliefs, I made it clear that it is not true. It is not due to religion that the name of Macedonia is being disputed. That is why I said that the logic speaks for itself. It is a simple sentence.

Read this again please.

I dont actually know what thread your example came from to see the context of it; but in this one you did nothing to make anything clear. It is clear you don't think Arabs dislike Jews because of religion

Yes. It was made clear to the person who read all my posts.

but it is not clear as to why.

Yes it is.

You gave the son-sequencer data that most make to believe that Arabs dislike Jews due to religion, and then did explain why it is non-sequencer. Being clear would be listing off the other sources that cause the dislike, the real factors at blame.

I made it clear in that thread that Arabs did not dislike Israel due to religious beliefs. It was very clear.

'the logic speaks for itself' is not a argument.

My argument was fairly much longer.

its a 'figure out yourself' statement. when the person you are arguing with has figured out the same thing as you already by definition they are not going to 'figure it out' themselves without any aid to doing that from you. you would have to lay out the 'simple' logical path to why its not rooted in religion for them, then you can hope they get it. if they didnt get it before then there not going to get it now no matter how simple you proclaim the logic is without spelling it out for them.

You are taking the "the logic speaks for itself" sentence way too seriously. I made it perfectly clear that many groups of people dislike each other, and then sarcastically said that the fact that Arabs dislike Israel is due to religion - which it is not because many peoples, even Muslims, dislike each other and not Israel, which is clearly political, not religious.

now you see, that was not clear to me. I read that list of observances and assumed you were using Greece and Turkey to further point to religion as the blame. Stupid American like me reads 'Turkey' and thinks middle eastern religion like Islam is likely is main religion and Greece is something like catholic right?Dont rely on my cultural knowledge of every country you list off. if you need to make the point you just did spell out 'Greece is catholic, so is Turkey yet they still dont like each other' instead of just leaving it at 'Greece dose not like Turkey'

No, I explained above. I have no need of repetition.

When you dont have time to finish an argument, just leave the vauger stuff and not have time to correct my confusions that I will bring up in the form of objections, I will just stay confused. Its along the lines of 'dont start what you cant finish' type attitude. Its not exactly deep philosophy or anything.

But if I start when I have time, why not stop when I have no more time?

If it is true or clear how can you say people are misunderstanding it?

Yes, why do they misunderstand it, and not only the part of "logic speaks for itself?" You are going to deep into that phrase. Just forget it and let us move on.

true and clear statement do not get misunderstandings.

Yes they do. They are not applicable to the minds of all humans.

if they do then they are not 'clear' by definition.

Not clear to all. It is relative.

don't give up on this conversation yet.

When did I do that?

by your own admission you seem to confuse people all the time. listen to what factors played in your confusing me in this case and you should see why you likely confuse others in other cases.

My posts may be confusing, but not all are - and seeing how people first msunderstand me, then they say they did not, and come with an excuse, I need to analyze it a bit more. Maybe it is on purpose.

At 9/24/2010 11:01:26 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:You claimed the divides in the Middle East were on ethnic lines, the poll stated otherwise.

Where did I claim that? Please tell me. I said that Arabs dislike Israel, but not due to religion. Then he showed statistics of how many Muslims and Arabs dislike Jews. That is totally irrelevant.

Oh yes, more of this "I know best, no evidence can trump me" attitude. Seriously.

Not true.

Most of your arguments are weak,

But they still stand strongest against all counter-arguments.

somewhat farcical,

Why?

don't use evidence,

I have used a lot of evidence. In fact, if someone reads e.g. 10 books about the same subject, then he an use general knowledge to make a point. He does not need to open each book and cite sentences from it. When evidence is needed I come with evidence.

and any time I bring this up you state you do this in debates.

No, anytime you bring it up, I can easily strike back with your own posts that lack evidence, right away. I need only a few clicks.

The problem is, you don't do debates.

I do, more controversial than many. And I do not do formal debates at the moment for several reasons. Even if I do, I know that I would be vote-bombed if I debate against specific people here about specific issues. My first debate was on October 13, 2009, and theLwerd accepted it. Both she and Vi_Veri vote-bombed me. Now the glibness has come to light.

How overdue is that Tito one with Volkov?

Let us see what he said...

"And just so you're aware, we're going to have a debate over Tito, if I get around to my studies on him."

Now, he did not specify much more than that. Arriverdeci to your argument.

At 9/24/2010 11:01:26 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:You claimed the divides in the Middle East were on ethnic lines, the poll stated otherwise.

Where did I claim that? Please tell me. I said that Arabs dislike Israel, but not due to religion. Then he showed statistics of how many Muslims and Arabs dislike Jews. That is totally irrelevant.

Firstly, you mentioned a lot of ethnicities and nationalities and implied a lot of these divides were due to that ratehr than religion.

No, no it is not. Israel is comprised primarily of Jews, and a high percentage Arabs and Muslims dislike Jews. It is far-fetched to think this is a main reason for the dislike of Israel.

Oh yes, more of this "I know best, no evidence can trump me" attitude. Seriously.

Not true.

Yes true. You have shown thsi attitude multiple times.

Most of your arguments are weak,

But they still stand strongest against all counter-arguments.

Funny.

somewhat farcical,

Why?

Because of statements along the lines of "masturbation causes blindness". Don't claim you haven't stated that, you have.

don't use evidence,

I have used a lot of evidence. In fact, if someone reads e.g. 10 books about the same subject, then he an use general knowledge to make a point. He does not need to open each book and cite sentences from it. When evidence is needed I come with evidence.

Then cite the book.

and any time I bring this up you state you do this in debates.

No, anytime you bring it up, I can easily strike back with your own posts that lack evidence, right away. I need only a few clicks.

Then why not? It is Debate.org

The problem is, you don't do debates.

I do, more controversial than many. And I do not do formal debates at the moment for several reasons. Even if I do, I know that I would be vote-bombed if I debate against specific people here about specific issues. My first debate was on October 13, 2009, and theLwerd accepted it. Both she and Vi_Veri vote-bombed me. Now the glibness has come to light.

TheLwerd doesn't votebomb any longer.

How overdue is that Tito one with Volkov?

Let us see what he said...

"And just so you're aware, we're going to have a debate over Tito, if I get around to my studies on him."

Now, he did not specify much more than that. Arriverdeci to your argument.

Lol, you were the one pushing the argument back last time I checked. What about the debate with theLwerd?

At 9/24/2010 11:22:24 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:Firstly, you mentioned a lot of ethnicities and nationalities and implied a lot of these divides were due to that ratehr than religion.

Politics.

No, no it is not. Israel is comprised primarily of Jews, and a high percentage Arabs and Muslims dislike Jews. It is far-fetched to think this is a main reason for the dislike of Israel.

Jews/Israel - Referring to the both in that context.

And no, my argument disproved that. Many peoples dislike each other a lot, and when we look at the history and politics, we realize that it is not due to religion. Many Muslims will dislike even Japan if it started attacking Muslims. That is why I mentioned various people disliking each other. In fact, in my country, Muslims tend to call Jews well-ordained/cultural people, while they dislike many Serbs. This is politics.

Yes true. You have shown thsi attitude multiple times.

No, I have not. When several people confront me, I do nothing wrong in proving myself right in different way.

Funny.

It may be, but it is true.

Because of statements along the lines of "masturbation causes blindness". Don't claim you haven't stated that, you have.

Then please cite the statement. And I had a thought about the fact that you thought of the masturbation part when you said that.

Quote please. Direct quote, if you do not mind. It was not long ago. For your interest, the discussion about masturbatin was in the Debate.org forum.

Then cite the book.

I have done that previously. But then again, my entire point was that citing one book about something if you have read 10, is not necessarily needed.

Then why not? It is Debate.org

I do it. I do come with counter-arguments in any effective way. I am not a person that lets myself down.

I do, more controversial than many. And I do not do formal debates at the moment for several reasons. Even if I do, I know that I would be vote-bombed if I debate against specific people here about specific issues. My first debate was on October 13, 2009, and theLwerd accepted it. Both she and Vi_Veri vote-bombed me. Now the glibness has come to light.

TheLwerd doesn't votebomb any longer.

I am glad to hear, but other people do.

How overdue is that Tito one with Volkov?

Let us see what he said...

"And just so you're aware, we're going to have a debate over Tito, if I get around to my studies on him."

Now, he did not specify much more than that. Arriverdeci to your argument.

Lol, you were the one pushing the argument back last time I checked. What about the debate with theLwerd?

I was not pushing back. I said that he was second on my list, if he wanted to debate Tito.

The debate with theLwerd is postponed, and it is not a promise of ultimate need of a specific appointment.

At 9/24/2010 11:22:24 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:Firstly, you mentioned a lot of ethnicities and nationalities and implied a lot of these divides were due to that ratehr than religion.

Politics.

Regardless, the evidence shows the divide is religious.

No, no it is not. Israel is comprised primarily of Jews, and a high percentage Arabs and Muslims dislike Jews. It is far-fetched to think this is a main reason for the dislike of Israel.

Jews/Israel - Referring to the both in that context.

And no, my argument disproved that. Many peoples dislike each other a lot, and when we look at the history and politics, we realize that it is not due to religion. Many Muslims will dislike even Japan if it started attacking Muslims. That is why I mentioned various people disliking each other. In fact, in my country, Muslims tend to call Jews well-ordained/cultural people, while they dislike many Serbs. This is politics.

Your argument is nice, but it's unsupported.

Yes true. You have shown thsi attitude multiple times.

No, I have not. When several people confront me, I do nothing wrong in proving myself right in different way.

You strike down peoples argument with being circular and silly and state evidence is irrelevant because your'e a superhuman, or something.

Funny.

It may be, but it is true.

Still, funny.

Because of statements along the lines of "masturbation causes blindness". Don't claim you haven't stated that, you have.

Then please cite the statement. And I had a thought about the fact that you thought of the masturbation part when you said that.

Quote please. Direct quote, if you do not mind. It was not long ago. For your interest, the discussion about masturbatin was in the Debate.org forum.

Did so above.

Then cite the book.

I have done that previously. But then again, my entire point was that citing one book about something if you have read 10, is not necessarily needed.

It is. Evidence is evidence.

Then why not? It is Debate.org

I do it. I do come with counter-arguments in any effective way. I am not a person that lets myself down.

Hardly 'effective'.

I do, more controversial than many. And I do not do formal debates at the moment for several reasons. Even if I do, I know that I would be vote-bombed if I debate against specific people here about specific issues. My first debate was on October 13, 2009, and theLwerd accepted it. Both she and Vi_Veri vote-bombed me. Now the glibness has come to light.

TheLwerd doesn't votebomb any longer.

I am glad to hear, but other people do.

Such as?

How overdue is that Tito one with Volkov?

Let us see what he said...

"And just so you're aware, we're going to have a debate over Tito, if I get around to my studies on him."

Now, he did not specify much more than that. Arriverdeci to your argument.

Lol, you were the one pushing the argument back last time I checked. What about the debate with theLwerd?

I was not pushing back. I said that he was second on my list, if he wanted to debate Tito.

The debate with theLwerd is postponed, and it is not a promise of ultimate need of a specific appointment.

No, you said that I directly stated that masturbation causes blindness. A link is direct reference to something, which, as a whole, wmakes my point indirect, not direct, since it was via another source. That is one error. Another error is the fact that you mentioned blindness being caused by masturbation, and neither I nor the links say that. Temporary blurred vision / reduced level of eye-sight is not equivalent to blindness.

Did so above.

I do not see any direct statement of mine.

It is. Evidence is evidence.

Sometimes it is not possible to provide such evidence.

Hardly 'effective'.

That is far from the truth.

Such as?

I am not going into specific people. They are not participating in this thread and I cannot make sure that they will read so that it is not backbiting.

The debate with theLwerd is postponed, and it is not a promise of ultimate need of a specific appointment.

No, you said that I directly stated that masturbation causes blindness. A link is direct reference to something, which, as a whole, wmakes my point indirect, not direct, since it was via another source. That is one error. Another error is the fact that you mentioned blindness being caused by masturbation, and neither I nor the links say that. Temporary blurred vision / reduced level of eye-sight is not equivalent to blindness.

But leads to blindness.

Did so above.

I do not see any direct statement of mine.

Its in thread. You cited those links as evidence, which become an extension of your argument.

It is. Evidence is evidence.

Sometimes it is not possible to provide such evidence.

Like when?

Hardly 'effective'.

That is far from the truth.

Closer than you are.

Such as?

I am not going into specific people. They are not participating in this thread and I cannot make sure that they will read so that it is not backbiting.

Then PM them to me?

The debate with theLwerd is postponed, and it is not a promise of ultimate need of a specific appointment.

No, you said that I directly stated that masturbation causes blindness. A link is direct reference to something, which, as a whole, wmakes my point indirect, not direct, since it was via another source. That is one error. Another error is the fact that you mentioned blindness being caused by masturbation, and neither I nor the links say that. Temporary blurred vision / reduced level of eye-sight is not equivalent to blindness.

But leads to blindness.

Ctrl + F on both pages and I cannot find the word "blindness." Neither can Mozilla Firefox!

Its in thread. You cited those links as evidence, which become an extension of your argument.

That is not a direct statement. Direct statement would be, "Masturbation definitely causes blindness!" - Even if I said all that the site say, I do not see where blindness comes to question.

Like when?

If we were in a desert without any external sources, and discussed something.